A hearing about control of The Greenbrier Hotel is likely to be pushed off by a few weeks.
Attorneys on both sides of the dispute filed a joint request to modify the existing court schedule in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
The parties agreed to extend their deadlines. This has happened because lawyers for White Sulphur Springs Holdings, associated with the owners of the Omni hotel chain, intend to file a revised complaint and a request to appoint a receiver to serve as caretaker of the historic hotel.
According to the proposed timeline, the attorneys for White Sulphur Springs Holdings intend to submit updated motions in early May.
Responses by attorneys for Senator Jim Justice’s family business organization, owners of The Greenbrier, would be filed later that month.
The adjustments, both sides say, are aimed at streamlining the judicial process and ensuring both sides have adequate time to address complex issues before a formal evidentiary hearing in June.
The federal judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Frank Volk, had earlier scheduled an evidentiary hearing at 9:30 a.m. May 11.
The Justice business organizations are being sued by, White Sulphur Springs Holdings, a newly formed affiliate of TRT Holdings, parent company of Omni Hotels & Resorts.
TRT Holdings is owned by Texas billionaire Robert Rowling, whose son Blake serves as the company’s president. Omni operates more than 50 luxury properties.
White Sulphur Springs Holdings bought nearly $300 million in first-lien debt on The Greenbrier and related properties and then moved for receivership of the historic hotel, essentially asking the federal court to appoint a third-party caretaker.
Lawyers for the hotel chain owners moved for the receiver to be appointed on an emergency basis, maintaining that the hotel collateral is at risk because of deferred maintenance and additional mounting concerns.
But because of the new motion, the hearing before the judge seems likely to be pushed off another month.
Judge Volk, in his scheduling order last week, had already raised issues about the basis of an emergency. He wrote that “although Plaintiff’s counsel requests the emergency appointment of a receiver, they cite no authority respecting the Court’s power to act on an emergency basis.”
He continued, “The Court is thus left to speculate regarding the substantive and procedural basis for expeditiously acting on the request.”